Alright boyz, here we go! OOTP 11 first impressions thread

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Widget mania! Oh.. and Santana looks good in a Cardinals uniform!

I'm curious, you said you did a fantasy draft. Did you find the AI was competent at drafting their own teams? I only ask because I noticed you were able to snag Santana and Pujols. Did you have the #1 overall pick? I would think in a real life situation Santana, although he's not as good as he once was IMO, would still be a first round pick.

[DaddyTorgo]

oooh - good question!!!

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

I'm curious, you said you did a fantasy draft. Did you find the AI was competent at drafting their own teams? I only ask because I noticed you were able to snag Santana and Pujols. Did you have the #1 overall pick? I would think in a real life situation Santana, although he's not as good as he once was IMO, would still be a first round pick.

Yes I made myself have the #1 pick.. because well, nobody is getting Pujols.

I was VERY pleased in what the computer drafted except for middle relievers, it seems like I have an excellent MR staff - although I did lose my first game 5-2 as my bullpen let me down.

The computer drafted for the future for the most part, so it will be interesting to see how I do in a few years. Strasburg and Heyward were snatched up very early and as I look at the top minor league systems, I see that I am dead last.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by SunDevil

Ok. I have not bought the game yet. What on the screen is a widget, and where did you download them? I am on verge of buying this game, just based on the screen shot and everyone's feedback so far.

So if I did buy the game what would I have to do to get the in-game screen to look like your screen shot?

Thanks for the help MizzouRah.

What Clebrownsfan said.. you go to the BNN widgets page and then you can do all sorts of things by clicking on "configure screen".

[MizzouRah]

I might flip flop the widgets to opposite sides.. LOL..

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

Yes I made myself have the #1 pick.. because well, nobody is getting Pujols.

I was VERY pleased in what the computer drafted except for middle relievers, it seems like I have an excellent MR staff - although I did lose my first game 5-2 as my bullpen let me down.

The computer drafted for the future for the most part, so it will be interesting to see how I do in a few years. Strasburg and Heyward were snatched up very early and as I look at the top minor league systems, I see that I am dead last.

That's not that unbelievable then. I'm not sure how Santana is rated in the game, but seeing him go with the first pick in the second round isn't too unbelievable if the CPU is geared toward future performance. Also, does it take contracts into consideration? If so, that would be another reason to drop Santana a little bit in the draft.

I'd be curious to see the players drafted ahead of him.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

That's not that unbelievable then. I'm not sure how Santana is rated in the game, but seeing him go with the first pick in the second round isn't too unbelievable if the CPU is geared toward future performance. Also, does it take contracts into consideration? If so, that would be another reason to drop Santana a little bit in the draft.

I'd be curious to see the players drafted ahead of him.

I had that option off (as I used the button to adjust payrolls after the draft took place).

I can give you a list of the first round picks when I get home, but I do know it was laden with future stars.

[CleBrownsfan]

I've had this problem with previous versions but was to lazy to look for an answer. If you don't use scouts/coaching it seems like small market teams (I play with the Indians) have tons of money to spend - their budget is 94 mil. I can pretty much buy any FA on the market without any concerns. I never really "feel" like a small market team. I'm guessing because they take in consideration scout/coaching cost in the budget... any thoughts?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by CleBrownsfan

I've had this problem with previous versions but was to lazy to look for an answer. If you don't use scouts/coaching it seems like small market teams (I play with the Indians) have tons of money to spend - their budget is 94 mil. I can pretty much buy any FA on the market without any concerns. I never really "feel" like a small market team. I'm guessing because they take in consideration scout/coaching cost in the budget... any thoughts?

The financial engine isn't that sophisticated and has absolutely nothing to do with coaching/scouting. If you want to limit the spending of a small market team in an uncapped league, you can simply lower their budget and cash on hand through artificial means (ensuring the market size is always set low, limiting the team's media revenues, etc.) but that takes tinkering.

Turning off coaches and scouts just ensures you're not spending fake dollars on things that have nothing to do with player development. Right now, you pay for a coach or a scout and they might assess players better and the coaches might "make them better" so I guess the argument there is it's all about player development, but the way it's implement is faulty and I don't even have the time to reprise all of the old arguments about this, but it's a discussion that's been going on for at least three versions now (especially over in OOTP-land) about the efficacy of scouting in the game.

Some folks like the "fog of war" and having a scout miss on a player to varying degrees because it seems more realistic that way. But it has nothing to do with small market teams being small market, they're not related.

Though, part of why I created GMExcel/MarketCalc was precisely because I wanted to simulate the divisions of small market/medium market/large market teams better than the game allowed in it's native state.

[CleBrownsfan]

Great answer DC - thanks for your insight.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by CleBrownsfan

I've had this problem with previous versions but was to lazy to look for an answer. If you don't use scouts/coaching it seems like small market teams (I play with the Indians) have tons of money to spend - their budget is 94 mil. I can pretty much buy any FA on the market without any concerns. I never really "feel" like a small market team. I'm guessing because they take in consideration scout/coaching cost in the budget... any thoughts?

On my game (standard MLB setup, now in 2014) Cleveland has a $117m budget, and that ranks 21st out of the 30 teams. Fifteen teams have a budget over $130m and only four teams have less than $100m to spend.

I think I'm going to start a new game and lower average attendances and the average ticket price in the financial rules. In 2009 there were ten MLB teams that averaged over 35,000 fans per game. In 2013 on my OOTP game there were eighteen of them. From reading the financial reports about half of a team's money in OOTP comes from ticket sales so hopefully that will produce more realistic results.

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

On my game (standard MLB setup, now in 2014) Cleveland has a $117m budget, and that ranks 21st out of the 30 teams. Fifteen teams have a budget over $130m and only four teams have less than $100m to spend.

I think I'm going to start a new game and lower average attendances and the average ticket price in the financial rules. In 2009 there were ten MLB teams that averaged over 35,000 fans per game. In 2013 on my OOTP game there were eighteen of them. From reading the financial reports about half of a team's money in OOTP comes from ticket sales so hopefully that will produce more realistic results.

As long as you think Cleveland belongs as the 21/30 team in the league in terms of money, why bother lowering the $'s for all teams. At the end of the day, it will have no effect, correct?

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

As long as you think Cleveland belongs as the 21/30 team in the league in terms of money, why bother lowering the $'s for all teams. At the end of the day, it will have no effect, correct?

The budgets are so high that middle/small market teams don't have to make difficult decisions on who to keep or let go nearly as often as middle/small market teams do in real life. It's almost like playing with finances turned off.

[CleBrownsfan]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

The budgets are so high that middle/small market teams don't have to make difficult decisions on who to keep or let go nearly as often as middle/small market teams do in real life. It's almost like playing with finances turned off.

Exactly my point

[Philliesfan980]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

The budgets are so high that middle/small market teams don't have to make difficult decisions on who to keep or let go nearly as often as middle/small market teams do in real life. It's almost like playing with finances turned off.

Gotcha (Sorry, I haven't played OOTP in years, but thinking about getting back into it this year).

So basically what you're saying is it's not just an inflated $ across the league and salaries are adjusted upward accordingly?

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Philliesfan980

Gotcha (Sorry, I haven't played OOTP in years, but thinking about getting back into it this year).

So basically what you're saying is it's not just an inflated $ across the league and salaries are adjusted upward accordingly?

On my game the team payrolls are pretty realistic, maybe $10m more per team on average but a little more even than real life (the teams that spend the least spend a little more in OOTP, and the teams at the top don't outspend the others by as much as they do in real life). So the team salaries are close enough for me, it's just that teams make so much more money than they spend that they can afford to keep almost any potential free agents that are willing to resign with them.

Originally Posted by miked

I think it still takes a lot of luck, but anyone over an endurance of 3 (1-10) gets put in the rotation to develop a 3rd pitch.

I'll have to try this. There are usually some two pitch pitchers with high stamina and stuff/movement/control potential available in the draft. I usually let the AI run the minor league lineups and rotation but if I get one of these guys I'll make sure they're not being used as relievers in the minors.

[DaddyTorgo]

how can we get the financials tweaked so that doesn't happen with the money though?

[Pumpy Tudors]

I was about ready to buy the game until I read the stuff about the financials in here.

[stevew]

OOTP financials messed up? Lemme get in my wayback machine and go back to 2005 when I had the same complaints as I'm sure are being raised about the 11th version of the game.

[JetsIn06]

Keep in mind though, that part of your budget goes towards signing bonuses in the draft.

Playing as the Rays, I spent all of my budget to keep Crawford, and then had nothing left for signing bonuses and three of my top five picks went unsigned.

I still think some small market teams have too much money, however. Just keep that in mind when you're dishing out contract extensions and free agent contracts.

I definitely think lowering the average attendance is an interesting idea to try.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey32

I thought Markus fix it? Still broken?

I haven't bought 11 yet, I'm waiting on Amazon.com to deliver my new laptop.

The problem is a design flaw with the game, so while he said he 'fixed' something, I doubt it was the problem that I was talking about.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

how can we get the financials tweaked so that doesn't happen with the money though?

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I was about ready to buy the game until I read the stuff about the financials in here.

Originally Posted by stevew

OOTP financials messed up? Lemme get in my wayback machine and go back to 2005 when I had the same complaints as I'm sure are being raised about the 11th version of the game.

I think the problems are endemic a variety of issues that would probably require too much energy to fix, so they're just ignored or glossed over. They're more than cosmetic ones.

I created this suite of tools to deal with the financial issues back in 2007 and it's evolved quite a bit since I started with it. I'm going to work on an update for OOTP 11, but I have no idea when I'll be done, because honestly, the whole thing needs an overhaul.

Alternatives though using it, include setting media money a bit lower across the board and I've found setting it to the same rate for all teams and tinkering with "juggernaut" teams on their own is easier than trying to let the game to it's own devices.

Market sizes fluctuate based on team performance and I guess now owner willingness to spend, etc., so that adds a new wrinkle to things. The good thing is, the game can be tamed to a degree and the bad thing is, it's not setup in such a manner that allows you to really depict real world baseball finances without a heavy dosage of tinkering.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by JetsIn06

I still think some small market teams have too much money, however. Just keep that in mind when you're dishing out contract extensions and free agent contracts.

I definitely think lowering the average attendance is an interesting idea to try.

Lowering average attendance and lowering ticket prices, as well as lowering the market sizes of small market teams and their cash on hand (and now, their owner's willingness to spend...) would all be ways to simulate the small market experience better in this year's version.

The draft signee thing is actually good, except the way it's implemented isn't really sensible because teams don't pay rookies out of the same "pool" of money they pay major league players and it doesn't count against their real life budgets, because of course...those players take years to reach the majors in most cases, if ever.

But I like that it's added, as it makes the draft more interesting than it's been in years.

[DaddyTorgo]

i don't have the patience to go in and tinker with multiple teams' finances every off-season, nor do i recall to do it with everything else i have to remember in my life.

*shrugs*

[Young Drachma]

I used to think I was the only one that was annoyed about it. One of the things I used to do with GMExcel is just use it to tinker with my team and then let the rest of the league to it's own devices, figuring that it's all evens out in the long run.

I suspect that's why it's never been a real priority to fix it, that it works in a functional way and that people can go above and beyond if they want otherwise.

Shrug.

[Big Fo]

For the budgets two simple tweaks have done a good job of making them more realistic on a new game I started tonight.

Under financial rules in the league menu:

Average attendance per game: Default option is 30,000. Change that to 25,000.

Average ticket price: Default option is $20. Change that to $15.

I'll mess around with it a little more as I play more seasons but this has made a significant difference.

[DaddyTorgo]

cool

[DeToxRox]

I am going to start up a historical league to coincide with the birth of the Rockies/Marlins. If I add all the leagues will the FA market be flooded with a ton of foreign players yearly?

If I don't add these leagues will there be enough players for full minors?

[PadresFan104]

Just a heads up that I posted a set of new ballpark images on my OOTP Mod Website. I captured them from MLB 10: The Show. They provide a better angle than the ones included in the MLB All-In-1 that is available from Add-Ons Central in the game. Here's a sampling:

[Icy]

Looking great Padresfan!

About the finances issue, I like Big Fo fixes and i would also edit the GM's of small market teams to be less whiling to expend money (that is probably one of the reasons of why small market teams keep being small in real life).

As a Marlins fan, i'm used to owners who don't want to expend a dime on his team, and it's a nice challenge for me to run the team with such an owner (he has 1 over 10 rating in Owner spending in the MLB quickstart).

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

I am going to start up a historical league to coincide with the birth of the Rockies/Marlins. If I add all the leagues will the FA market be flooded with a ton of foreign players yearly?

If I don't add these leagues will there be enough players for full minors?

I'm not sure I understand the question. If you do it as a true historical league, there will (should) only be real historical players in your universe (unless you purposely stock teams with fictional players). Each year, the real players who come into the league will be added, either through a draft or you can have them put on the real teams they came up with in that year (if you do a draft, I suggest holding it after the season because otherwise they debut too early). You shouldn't have any foreign players other than the real ones.

For the minor leagues, if you have a bunch of leagues, you'll want to make sure you allow ghost players so that all you'll have in the minors is the real players. So, if you have a bunch of leagues, you may only have a few guys on a minor league team if there are not enough real players to stock every team.

If you are looking to create a hybrid historical/fictional league, then I think yes, for all the leagues you create outside the historical ones, you'll end up with a bunch of fictional players potentially able to flood your MLB leagues (although I think there are settings you can use to keep them separate, but then what's the point?).

I guess I'm not exactly sure what type of universe you are trying to create.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by stevew

OOTP financials messed up? Lemme get in my wayback machine and go back to 2005 when I had the same complaints as I'm sure are being raised about the 11th version of the game.

BUT YOU CAN BUILD A LEAGUE IN SIERRA LEONE

[RainMaker]

I'm really interested in getting back into this series. I was a big fan of 6.5 and playing MLB style leagues. When the game shifted away from that, I sort of lost interest and just never got that involved. It seems like they are trying to bring back the MLB players which has me intrigued.

Couple questions:

1) How are the sims with the current rosters? Somewhat realistic results and do the leagues get bombarded with problems in ratings 10 years down the line. Wasn't a big issue that there were virtually no catchers who could defend years into a league? I have no problem with some oddities in the stats when it comes to who does what, I'm just curious if you're finding that there are guys hitting 100 homers a year 10 years in.

2) Are the financials a gamebreaker? I think financials are an important aspect of the game so I'm a little concerned about what some have been saying. I'm not looking for perfection, but I don't want the Royals to be able to be able to re-sign everyone and pick up big name free agents.

3) Is it a challenge playing against the CPU? Sure there should be house rules, but will I be taking a team like the Orioles to the World Series every year within a couple years? Or will it be tough to improve a small market team.

Not looking for perfection, just something that simulated an MLB style league in a similar way to 6.5.

[Young Drachma]

The game has improved leaps and strides since 6.5 and if anyone tries to say it hasn't, they are being disingenuous. Because for all of my own personal complaints about what the game doesn't do for me, it's the most flexible out of box text-sim experience out there.

So to answer your questions:

1. V. 11 had an entire team dedicated to building a MLB ready roster for this version. So there was no waiting around for rosters.

2. Financials work fine for what they are. They're no gamebreaker, so long as you follow the suggests made by others to keep the financial numbers down in terms of average attendance and maybe even avg. ticket price and revenues, everything would/will be fine. Or even just playing out of the box. The real problem with finances is the game doesn't realize that playing in New York is a bigger market, because the market sizes are dynamic, so over time it'll eventually shift them based on team performance. This is annoying, but easily fixed if you desire a heavy dose of realism.

3. Inevitably it gets easier and easier to predict flaws as you play more. But the game's playoff engine to it's credit has been infused with a great deal of variety, that even the "best" teams often succumb to the this and that and as such, you can't just steamroll. You can obviously outsmart the AI if you try, it's not that hard, but...it's not like you're playing Mogul or something.

Again, the game has come a long way since 6.5 and if you really haven't played since then, I'd suggest that this is certainly a good time to reenter the pool compared to even the previous attempts of recent years.

[Ksyrup]

I just haven't had enough time to play the game since I got it, but I did fire up that all-in-one MLB universe and simmed 2010, and the results came out pretty realistic. Probably too realistic, at least in how they conformed to pre-season expectations/predictions.

I just don't know how I'd keep up with 6 levels of minor leagues they have in that all-in-one package. Usually, the leagues I play I rarely have even 3 levels. Seems like way too much work.

[MizzouRah]

I just have the CPU mess with the minor leagues.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I just haven't had enough time to play the game since I got it, but I did fire up that all-in-one MLB universe and simmed 2010, and the results came out pretty realistic. Probably too realistic, at least in how they conformed to pre-season expectations/predictions.

I just don't know how I'd keep up with 6 levels of minor leagues they have in that all-in-one package. Usually, the leagues I play I rarely have even 3 levels. Seems like way too much work.

Funny you say that. In my first sim the Royals won the WS. I was worried and simmed the season six more times. The Royals never made the playoffs again. Every other team who won the title was within the realm of possibility.

As for the minors. . . let the minor league managers handle the stuff. Every month to two months, look through the minor league system and see who it says is ready to go up or down. Make a couple of adjustments and you'll be good to go.

I'm having a lot of fun with this version of the game. . . thought it's extremely unusual for me to start with the Rockies and be able to become dominant quick. I don't even have to make a lot of trades in this version. Tons of young guns, all on their rookie deals. You can't win 100 with the Rockies in two years in this game, you either suffered disasterous luck or you don't know how to play baseball sims.

[Big Fo]

Colorado made it to the World Series in 2010, 2011, and 2012 on my current MLB game.

edit: My Braves finally ended the streak with a sweep. Nice to finally win the pennant after getting knocked out of the playoffs the last three years.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

2. Financials work fine for what they are. They're no gamebreaker, so long as you follow the suggests made by others to keep the financial numbers down in terms of average attendance and maybe even avg. ticket price and revenues, everything would/will be fine. Or even just playing out of the box. The real problem with finances is the game doesn't realize that playing in New York is a bigger market, because the market sizes are dynamic, so over time it'll eventually shift them based on team performance. This is annoying, but easily fixed if you desire a heavy dose of realism.

As a game I have no problem with that. Markets change. Some small markets have new ballparks and are suddenly mid-markets. Some of the bigger markets have fallen off over time. Cities change, ballparks age and get rebuilt.

In OOTP you get markets changing as well, just that they don't necessarily change just like the real life teams would. In RL New York will always be the #1 market but most other teams have room for variance. It's hard to program something like that into the game.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Mota

As a game I have no problem with that. Markets change. Some small markets have new ballparks and are suddenly mid-markets. Some of the bigger markets have fallen off over time. Cities change, ballparks age and get rebuilt.

In OOTP you get markets changing as well, just that they don't necessarily change just like the real life teams would. In RL New York will always be the #1 market but most other teams have room for variance. It's hard to program something like that into the game.

Market size isn't dictated only by media money and small market. It's largely determined by media size. The game allows for it to be factored in, but to have it done dynamically would be very difficult. I'm aware of this and it's why I created a workaround for it. The conditions are there to allow it, but...for people who want things to resemble real life (I'm not one of them, really) that could be frustrating and so, I was just explaining it's limitations more than anything else.

Though, the way the financial system is implemented could be done a lot better...I've always said I prefer a sandbox where I can customize than having it be so rigid that the flaws aren't able to be overcome if you want to bad enough.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Mota

As a game I have no problem with that. Markets change. Some small markets have new ballparks and are suddenly mid-markets. Some of the bigger markets have fallen off over time. Cities change, ballparks age and get rebuilt.

In OOTP you get markets changing as well, just that they don't necessarily change just like the real life teams would. In RL New York will always be the #1 market but most other teams have room for variance. It's hard to program something like that into the game.

I'd disagree on this. I don't think markets change much. And if they do, it's over the course of decades. Atlanta has turned into a decent sized market over time, as well as the Phoenix area. But Milwaukee will never turn into New York no matter how many World Series titles they bring home. Our cities just don't fluctuate that dramatically and that quickly.

So while I feel market size should remain fixed, I do believe that there should be an element in how well a team utilizes that market. For instance the Cubs and White Sox are both in a huge market. The Cubs utilize that market much more though. So the Cubs may get 100% of the benefits of a large market, the White Sox may only get 70%.

What a fixed market does is essentially put a cap on what a particular team can do based on where they are. Milwaukee can never reach the local TV contracts or merchandising revenue a team in New York can if both are utilizing their markets. They'll never be able to charge the same ticket prices because there won't be as much demand. All teams have a ceiling on what they can accomplish in a particular market.

I would also add that it would be cool if you could steal a little juice from another market. If Washington becomes a great team over the course of a decade while Baltimore flounders, they should "steal" some of Baltimore's juice. For instance:

Washington Nationals Market:
Washington D.C. - 100% Utilization
Baltimore - 5% Utilization

Baltimore Orioles Market:
Baltimore - 65% Utilization

That leaves 30% of Baltimore's market unutilized at the moment. This gives Baltimore room to grow, but ultimately 100% in Baltimore is not the same as 100% in New York. Stealing marketshare from another city would also be really difficult and the numbers would always remain small for the team stealing. It can be primarily based on regions with the closer you are the higher probability. But also national based where a team like the Yankees could steal 1% of Tampa Bay's simply because they are much more prestiguous on a national scale. Only a few teams would be able to do that.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

The game has improved leaps and strides since 6.5 and if anyone tries to say it hasn't, they are being disingenuous. Because for all of my own personal complaints about what the game doesn't do for me, it's the most flexible out of box text-sim experience out there.

Flexibility doesn't make a better game. In fact, flexibility it what turned me off from OOTP. When the game moved away from what we see as regular baseball leagues and catered to those who wanted leagues in Africa with special rules and such, it hurt the core elements of the game. You could no longer run an MLB style universe that functioned in an accurate way. 6.5 had its warts, but for the most part, it resembled what we see in the world today. I was not able to replicate that in the first few versions following 6.5.

Flexibility is good in some cases, but not when it hurts the core element of the game. And not when it gets too complex that it turns off people who just want to take control of their favorite team and be GM.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Flexibility doesn't make a better game. In fact, flexibility it what turned me off from OOTP. When the game moved away from what we see as regular baseball leagues and catered to those who wanted leagues in Africa with special rules and such, it hurt the core elements of the game. You could no longer run an MLB style universe that functioned in an accurate way. 6.5 had its warts, but for the most part, it resembled what we see in the world today. I was not able to replicate that in the first few versions following 6.5.

Flexibility is good in some cases, but not when it hurts the core element of the game. And not when it gets too complex that it turns off people who just want to take control of their favorite team and be GM.

I like it. It all does seem a bit extraneous, but...it works for me in spite of itself. At least for me it does. Your points are well taken, but...meh. It does what I need/want it to do, so...it's fine. And for all of those criticisms, you don't have to use all of the extra features it's chock full of it. The game is still very able to do a very vanilla gaming experience if someone wants that. So, while I'm a rapid critic of certain aspects of things (namely, financials since it's my pet project) I don't think the whole "you can add players from Namibia" is a fair criticism as if somehow it detracts from other aspects of the game, because well...that functionality hasn't been improved since it was added and all it does is allow someone to add a bit of color to their league if they want it.

And I like that flexibility and clearly others do as well.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

...I don't think the whole "you can add players from Namibia" is a fair criticism as if somehow it detracts from other aspects of the game [...] and all it does is allow someone to add a bit of color to their league if they want it.

Orlando Hudson should play OOTP.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I like it. It all does seem a bit extraneous, but...it works for me in spite of itself. At least for me it does. Your points are well taken, but...meh. It does what I need/want it to do, so...it's fine. And for all of those criticisms, you don't have to use all of the extra features it's chock full of it. The game is still very able to do a very vanilla gaming experience if someone wants that. So, while I'm a rapid critic of certain aspects of things (namely, financials since it's my pet project) I don't think the whole "you can add players from Namibia" is a fair criticism as if somehow it detracts from other aspects of the game, because well...that functionality hasn't been improved since it was added and all it does is allow someone to add a bit of color to their league if they want it.

And I like that flexibility and clearly others do as well.

Well said. I agree with everything except I could care less about the flexibility as I only play a "real" MLB type game. However I would never argue to remove that flexibility as it has absolutely no effect on my MLB game.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'd disagree on this. I don't think markets change much. And if they do, it's over the course of decades. Atlanta has turned into a decent sized market over time, as well as the Phoenix area. But Milwaukee will never turn into New York no matter how many World Series titles they bring home. Our cities just don't fluctuate that dramatically and that quickly.

So while I feel market size should remain fixed, I do believe that there should be an element in how well a team utilizes that market. For instance the Cubs and White Sox are both in a huge market. The Cubs utilize that market much more though. So the Cubs may get 100% of the benefits of a large market, the White Sox may only get 70%.

What a fixed market does is essentially put a cap on what a particular team can do based on where they are. Milwaukee can never reach the local TV contracts or merchandising revenue a team in New York can if both are utilizing their markets. They'll never be able to charge the same ticket prices because there won't be as much demand. All teams have a ceiling on what they can accomplish in a particular market.

I would also add that it would be cool if you could steal a little juice from another market. If Washington becomes a great team over the course of a decade while Baltimore flounders, they should "steal" some of Baltimore's juice. For instance:

Washington Nationals Market:
Washington D.C. - 100% Utilization
Baltimore - 5% Utilization

Baltimore Orioles Market:
Baltimore - 65% Utilization

That leaves 30% of Baltimore's market unutilized at the moment. This gives Baltimore room to grow, but ultimately 100% in Baltimore is not the same as 100% in New York. Stealing marketshare from another city would also be really difficult and the numbers would always remain small for the team stealing. It can be primarily based on regions with the closer you are the higher probability. But also national based where a team like the Yankees could steal 1% of Tampa Bay's simply because they are much more prestiguous on a national scale. Only a few teams would be able to do that.

I defintely agree with this on the whole. I think market size modeling should be fixed to population a lot more than it is, but my fear would be that it'd have unintended consequences if they didn't understand the economic reasons for what they were doing. Plus, as you've pointed out... all of those foreign examples would then become more of an issue because I don't know how you model market sizes for the Namibian league.

I think the answer would be to not allow market sizes to shift based on team performance. That's the most annoying thing, is you set them based on whatever reality you're using and then they shift over time and could resemble something very different than you intended. And the way it's done now doesn't make much sense or add a whole lot of value other than to annoy IMHO.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

Orlando Hudson should play OOTP.

I had a feeling I should've rephrased that when I wrote it, but then, what else would you have posted about.

[Mota]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Washington Nationals Market:
Washington D.C. - 100% Utilization
Baltimore - 5% Utilization

I actually think this is a great idea!
You'd have a short term popularity that's based on the team's success
A market size that is pretty much fixed
And a market utilization that can change slightly from year to year, to reflect the long term success of a team at converting their market into paying customers.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I had a feeling I should've rephrased that when I wrote it, but then, what else would you have posted about.

Hey, at least I worked a real baseball reference in there. I deserve some credit for that.

[Ksyrup]

With the MLB All in One, are you guys sticking with the 30 round amateur draft? Is that the appropriate number of players to bring into that universe?